Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[theleftone]

You seem to be equating the acceptance of the idea of a deity with the belief that one exists.

I am not. The seeming nature of such comes from a misunderstanding of how the definition of 'lack of belief' atheism has been presented to and understood by me through both explicit and implicit means. Let me clarify.

The definition of atheism often explicitly provided by atheists on the Internet is "the lack of belief in the existence of God." However, in practice, there is a secondary element of the definition which is implied. This is the idea that atheism includes "the lack of belief in the non-existence of God." This implicit element in the way atheists practice the use of the word can be found in their declarations regarding the burden of proof.

These atheists often declare they are without a burden of proof. For this to be true, this means they cannot make claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Both statements are a declaration of what is truthful about reality, and because they are a declaration of something 'to be' they therefore carry a burden of proof.

Hence, based on the definition of 'lack of belief' provided by atheists, we must understand it as a pragmatic neutrality on the existence of God. In exchange


So, how does this reconnect to my full argument?

It is my belief once an individual comes to knowledge of a concept they formulate an opinion on the concept. They do not remain 'neutral.' They might remain open-minded (i.e., willing to review evidence and arguments from all sides), but not neutral. The reason for my belief rests in (a) my understanding of the improbability of humans to be neutral; (b) the lack of evidence for a human's ability to remain neutral; and (c) my own experience with biases from others and myself.


I see neutrality as a necessity to maintain a 'lack of belief' state. I understand it as such because belief is black and white. You either believe something or you lack belief in it. (Again, lacking belief in a proposition is different from accepting the opposite proposition.) If you believe something you then have a level of confidence in such belief. Confidence in a belief differences from person to person. Yet, when one 'lacks belief' in a proposition they have no level of confidence in that proposition.

[Chad]

Perhaps one way of looking at it might be:

As 'something' is to 'nothing', so is 'belief' to 'non-belief'.

So the absence of belief is just to say they don't hold the positive belief, or affirmation of that belief, about the god(s) in question.

However, are we defining absence of belief and non-belief as the same thing?

I would take absence of belief as being some sort of general ignorance of the belief over all. Where as a non-belief would just be affirmation that we don't hold the belief in question. If my idea of what would constitute a non-belief is correct, why not just say that we disbelieve it?

[theleftone]

So the absence of belief is just to say they don't hold the positive belief, or affirmation of that belief, about the god(s) in question.

This seems to be the explicit definition often provided. In my experience, there is an additional implicit element which includes an absence of negative belief (i.e., Belief that God does not exist.).

This is where I struggle with the notion. It seems quite difficult to maintain such a position if one has knowledge of the concept of God. Once they gain knowledge of the God concept, I tend to believe one leans to one side or the other.

[Catharsis]

Hi tselem,

I will try to briefly answer one of your questions, specifically about the concept of lacking a belief in the existence of any deities. I'll rephrase it to the 'concept of lacking a belief in the existence of God'.

The concept of lacking belief is one of the "illnesses of the heart". Specifically it is 'ignorance'. However, this doesn't mean lack of right kind of information or the right kind of intellectual knowledge. What it means is heart's ignorance of God. The lack of experience of God renders human beings incapable of knowing what it means to live apart from God. It's analogous to people who are content living in polluted cities. They are perfectly happy because they never experienced the clean, fresh air of the mountains. When we don't know, we are content with the 'darkness'. Recognition emerges when we experience the 'light', not before. Also, while we are in the 'dark' not only do we assume that it is the natural state of things but that it is also beautiful. In addition to 'ignorance', there is the related illness of 'forgetfulness' (the heart does not remember God).

[QED]

The concept of lacking belief is one of the "illnesses of the heart". Specifically it is 'ignorance'.

Hello Catharsis, welcome to the DC&R forums I can't recall the precise time that the realization occurred to mankind, but it's long since been known that the heart is purely an organ for the distribution of blood around the vascular system. Of course you may be speaking metaphorically and use "heart" as a metaphor for the non-rational side of our thought processes.

Your analogy with the clean country air versus the polluted city seems a little dubious as it takes two acknowledged situations, one clearly preferable over the other, and superimposes it onto the belief/non-belief in a deity. Without any clear link to the beneficial/detrimental side of things, how can such a statement be upheld?

I can imagine an atheistic mystic (a possible case despite the apparent incongruity) making the same statement as you in her own preferred terms.

[Catharsis]

Hi QED, what you just described, about the heart being viewed as purely an organ for the distribution of blood around the vascular system, is one of the core differences which emerged over the centuries between the Christian West and Christian East -- the difference being in the question of just how do we get to know God. In Eastern Orthodox theology and mysticism "the heart" is not viewed as simply an organ that distributes blood, but it is through the heart that God reveals Himself to humanity.

"Illnesses of the heart" is one of the most important concepts (ignorance, forgetfulness, toughness, blindness, contamination, imprudence). A person's existential foundation is the heart. In addition to being the indispensable physical organ that keeps the body alive, the heart is also the centre of our psychonoetic powers - the centre of our personhood and beingness.

I was an agnostic for most my life, or if not an agnostic than an atheist at certain times. I certainly did not miss God, or wanted to know Him. My own, rather puny experience of God helped me understand the darkness I was living in now when I look back. I can tell you with certainty that 'knowledge' of God is not gained through books on theology, philosophy and other subjects -- but through the heart.

[QED]

Hi QED, what you just described, about the heart being viewed as purely an organ for the distribution of blood around the vascular system, is one of the core differences which emerged over the centuries between the Christian West and Christian East -- the difference being in the question of just how do we get to know God. In Eastern Orthodox theology and mysticism "the heart" is not viewed as simply an organ that distributes blood, but it is through the heart that God reveals Himself to humanity.

Oh, so you were being literal A person fitted with one of these would be rendered incapable of receiving that all-important revelation. I'd hate to think so.

An artificial heart is a prosthetic device that is implanted into the body to replace the biological heart. It is distinct from a cardiopulmonary bypass machine (CPB), which is an external device used to provide the functions of both the heart and the lungs. The CPB oxygenates the blood, so does not need to be connected to both blood circuits. Also, a CPB is only suitable for a few hours use, while artificial hearts have so far been used for periods of long over a year (as of 2007).

"Illnesses of the heart" is one of the most important concepts (ignorance, forgetfulness, toughness, blindness, contamination, imprudence). A person's existential foundation is the heart. In addition to being the indispensable physical organ that keeps the body alive, the heart is also the centre of our psychonoetic powers - the centre of our personhood and beingness.

I still can't believe that you're being literal here. Spiritual Healing would seem to be impossible for a person with a diseased heart for example. We might as well point to any organ and claim it as the physical receptacle for a supernatural quantity.

I was an agnostic for most my life, or if not an agnostic than an atheist at certain times. I certainly did not miss God, or wanted to know Him. My own, rather puny experience of God helped me understand the darkness I was living in now when I look back. I can tell you with certainty that 'knowledge' of God is not gained through books on theology, philosophy and other subjects -- but through the heart.

But I don't see your claim to all this as having any potential for being unique. I recall experiencing a "heart-warming" moment when it dawned upon me that the vast universe we inhabit and observe might be but an infinitesimal pin-prick within some far greater structure with space-like and time-like properties -- one that would be technically indistinguishable from a beneficent creator-God from our restricted vantage point. Sometimes ideas gel in a way that feels like a revelation -- we might as well say they reach us through our kidneys, only that poets have long associated the heart with emotions.

If you were to read-up on human Psychology in addition to Esoteric Christianity I think you would find a great deal of information regarding the "parallel processing" that goes on it what was once termed the "subconscious" -- processing that informs our conscious thought processes with many a "revelation".

[realthinker]

Catharsis, thank you for some marvelous examples of some of the fabulous mechanisms of religious conversation.

"the heart" is not viewed as simply an organ that distributes blood, but it is through the heart that God reveals Himself to humanity.

At once here you've proposed that you've a more correct understanding of the function of a heart and of the purpose of that function. You've proposed "psychonoetic powers" and linked it to two words, "personness" and "beingness" that have whatever meaning one wishes to accept.

Then you propose that you've risen above the position of agnosticism or atheism to something more significant, and tie that again back to something achieved "through the heart."

It's clear that you have a particular understanding of truth that you've concocted based on your anxieties and snatches of ideas from religion and other patronizing schools of thought.

Some of you might look at this example and consider what I've described in other conversations regarding personal "truth". Truth is a set of ideas, each of which has some degree of correspondence to actual, objective truth, and some degree of coherence. These vague or arbitrary definitions of what a heart is and how it contributes to understanding the equally vague notions of "beingness" all work to bring coherency to a personal condition that could likely be understood by studying human behavior and social factors. It's easier, however, to craft a version of "truth" from words and ideas that don't really have any consequence in objective existence.

[Catharsis]

Hi realthinker,

If I offended you or anyone I apologize. I answered how the "lack of belief" is explained in the Orthodox Tradition, and I should've mentioned that -- I did not come up with this idea yesterday. The brief explanation on the illnesses of heart, were only that - brief and indeed very vague. However, this concept is part of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition that goes back two millenia, and is not arbitrary and vague. I certainly wouldn't be able to explain everything in few sentences, even if I wanted to.

However, if you feel that you know what my understanding of truth is, that you already know my anxieties and "personal condition" and have already institutionalized me, that is your choice, but don't you think it's a little presumptuous?

From your post, I can turn around and literally reply with your own statement:

It's clear that you have a particular understanding of truth that you've concocted based on your anxieties and snatches of ideas from religion and other patronizing schools of thought.

[Catharsis]

Hi Qed,

>>Oh, so you were being literal Sad A person fitted with one of these would be rendered incapable of receiving that all-important revelation. I'd hate to think so.<<

Has a person fitted with an artificial heart ever come out and said to have received that all-important revelation, as you put it?

>>I still can't believe that you're being literal here. Spiritual Healing would seem to be impossible for a person with a diseased heart for example. We might as well point to any organ and claim it as the physical receptacle for a supernatural quantity.<<

Such a scenario is possible. A diseased heart is still a heart.

>>But I don't see your claim to all this as having any potential for being unique. I recall experiencing a "heart-warming" moment when it dawned upon me that the vast universe we inhabit and observe might be but an infinitesimal pin-prick within some far greater structure with space-like and time-like properties -- one that would be technically indistinguishable from a beneficent creator-God from our restricted vantage point. Sometimes ideas gel in a way that feels like a revelation -- we might as well say they reach us through our kidneys, only that poets have long associated the heart with emotions.<<

A "heart-warming moment" is different. We experience it in different situations in our life.

>>If you were to read-up on human Psychology in addition to Esoteric Christianity I think you would find a great deal of information regarding the "parallel processing" that goes on it what was once termed the "subconscious" -- processing that informs our conscious thought processes with many a "revelation".<<

Can you point to a specific link or an article? I wouldn't mind reading it.